I met a lady from Africa, probably in her late thirties to early forties if I remember correctly (from many years ago), who'd had a daughter when she was thirteen. She admitted she was "just a kid" herself when she looks back. She said "You do things differently here in America" and shared the perspective that now her daughter is already grown and out on her own with her own family while she's still young and healthy enough to enjoy the rest of her life being free (from the demands of child-rearing on a daily basis). Interesting perspective.

Being married and raising children with both parents makes a profound difference to the children, of course, but having a support system when you're a teenage parent is probably more important than wealth. Culture vs affluence. Emotionally I think teenagers are probably a little too young to be optimally effective as parents as they don't have much life experience to pass on good decision-making skills to their offspring. Again, if culturally, they have a generational support system, the children can get good guidance that way.

Affluence can buy creature comforts, keep mothers from having to go to work to help support the family while dumping the kids in daycare for others to raise in their formative years. There are obviously dangers associated with others influencing children. Affluence doesn't preclude anyone from dumping their kids in daycare even if they're not working. Then again I've met older people who've had grandchildren dumped on them by irresponsible children which precludes them from being able to enjoy their retirement years.

Your question is kind of broad. From what perspective are we considering this? The child's perspective? The parents' perspective? The grandparents' perspective? A societal perspective? A parent's character is more important to how a child develops than their financial status. Also, when you think of it, God made women able to bear children in their teenage years.

I met a lady from Africa, probably in her late thirties to early forties if I remember correctly (from many years ago), who'd had a daughter when she was thirteen. She admitted she was "just a kid" herself when she looks back. She said "You do things differently here in America" and shared the perspective that now her daughter is already grown and out on her own with her own family while she's still young and healthy enough to enjoy the rest of her life being free (from the demands of child-rearing on a daily basis). Interesting perspective.

Being married and raising children with both parents makes a profound difference to the children, of course, but having a support system when you're a teenage parent is probably more important than wealth. Culture vs affluence. Emotionally I think teenagers are probably a little too young to be optimally effective as parents as they don't have much life experience to pass on good decision-making skills to their offspring. Again, if culturally, they have a generational support system, the children can get good guidance that way.

Affluence can buy creature comforts, keep mothers from having to go to work to help support the family while dumping the kids in daycare for others to raise in their formative years. There are obviously dangers associated with others influencing children. It doesn't preclude anyone from dumping their kids in daycare even if they're not working. Then again I've met older people who've had grandchildren dumped on them by irresponsible children which precludes them from being able to enjoy their retirement years.

Your question is kind of broad. From what perspective are we considering this? The child's perspective? The parents' perspective? The grandparents' perspective? A societal perspective? A parent's character is more important to how a child develops than their financial status. Also, when you think of it, God made women able to bear children in their teenage years.